9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of the defendant and dismissed all the suits. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion and remanded the suits for disposal on merits. Hence these appeals. The only question is whether the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, with its subsequent amendments has ousted the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts when a party is alleged to have been aggrieved by the administration of the Act. For this purpose it is necessary to refer to the relevant portions of the Act of which Sections 11 and 12 are the most important. The earlier sections deal with the levy of sales tax on various commodities and the method of levying the same. Section 11 lays down that an assessee objecting to an assessment made on him un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he power conferred upon the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That is, the powers are sufficiently wide as to entitle the Board to interfere in suitable cases. Sections 17 and 18 are also relevant for the present controversy. Section 17 prohibits the filing of a suit, or prosecution, or other proceeding, against any officer or servant of the State Govern- ment for any act done or purporting to be done, under the Act, with- out the previous sanction of the State Government. Sub-section (2) says that no officer or servant of the State Government shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil or criminal proceeding if the act was done in good faith in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case-law and held that so far as the Hindu Religious Endowments Board was concerned, a finding given by the Board that a particular building is a math or a temple can be agitated by means of an application before the Court and that a suit for a declaration under the ordinary law is not maintainable. They also referred to cases which held that the jurisdiction of the Court will not be ousted unless it is expressly or impliedly excluded by the enactment created by the special tribunal. In Secretary of State for India v. Mask & Co.,(2) the Privy Council held that under the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) and Land Customs Act (XIX of 1924), the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted and resort can only be had to the remedies provided by the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. (5) [1950] I.L.R. 950 Mad. 799. (6) [1951] 64 L.W. 366. (7) [1948] 2 S.T.C. 129; I.L.R. 27 Pat. 820. (8) [1941] I.L.R. 1941 Mad. 850. Waterworks v. Hakesford(1), as well as to the decision in Secretary of State for India v. Mask & Co.(2) Other cases of this Court, viz., in Ramachandra v. Secretary of State(3) and Iswarananda Bharathi v. Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowments Board(4), were also referred to. At page 860, the learned Chief Justice observes as follows: "Therefore we have here two principles clearly established. The first is that, to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts the exclusion must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The second is that, where the liability is statutory as opposed to liability unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of a suit requires the sanction of an authority. In such matters the Court's jurisdiction is not excluded. In this connection, reference might be made to the City Municipality Act, Section 287, District Municipalities Act, Sections 93 and 354, Local Boards Act, Sections 79 and 228. With regard to the City Municipality Act we have the case in Valli Ammal v. Corporation of Madras(6), where the principles have been discussed in detail. This decision was considered in Iswarananda Bharathiswami v. Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowments Board(4). In this connection we may also refer to the (1) [1859]141 E.R. 486. (4) [1931] I.L.R. 54 Mad. 928. (2) [1940] I.L.R. 1940 Mad. 599. (5) [1946] I.L.R. 1946 Mad. 330. (3) [1889] I.L.R. 12 Mad. 105. (6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like the present as a special tribunal......The Board acts only as part of the executive machinery and not as an independent body settling a dispute between the taxpayer and the taxing authority." The question therefore is whether in this case there is any such exclusion expressly or by necessary implication. When Section 18 of the Act provides that no suit shall be instituted against the State unless the same is done within six months from the date of the act complained of, it necessarily implies that there is no prohibition against the filing of a suit. The section is couched in the negative form; but if it is paraphrased and expressed in a positive form, the result comes to this, that a suit can be instituted against the State Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
